Maybe I was a bit too precipitous in giving Obama his first strike on foreign policy; Obama has since clarified that he will issue an executive order during his first week in office to close Guantanamo. Nevertheless, concerns about U.S. foreign policy, especially in relation to Secretary of State-elect Hillary Clinton, have rightfully been raised since her nomination hearing yesterday.
On last night’s NewsHour, Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies expressed her dismay over Hillary’s hawkishness on such issues as Hamas, Iran, and the call for soft power in name only. According to Bennis, “this notion of soft power is very important, but I heard too many parts of her testimony today where she sort of said the opposite when it came to the specifics.”
On the potential for conflicts of interest created by her husband’s foundation, the Washington Post published an editorial arguing that without greater transparency and disclosure Hillary’s mission could very well be undermined. According to the Post, the Associated Press has reported that “Ms. Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting firms or individuals tied to contributions to her husband’s foundation”. In her favor, as Jonathan Capehart points out, Senator David Vitter (aka, the DC madam scandal) is no one to be asking. Nevertheless, and I don’t mean to be a hater because I think that Hillary is about as smart and capable as anyone else in Washington, but she does need to clean house.
Grave Error 